Why Prediction Markets Need Stronger Player Protections Right Now

Advocacy Group Calls for Better Guardrails in Prediction Markets

Jonathan Cohen, sports betting policy lead at the American Institute for Boys and Men (AIBM), has outlined his organisation's push for stronger player protections in prediction markets and sports betting platforms. Speaking to Gambling Insider, Cohen argued that while regulated gambling markets are preferable to unregulated ones, current safeguards aren't sufficient for the way prediction markets attract and retain players.

According to Cohen, prediction markets — platforms where users wager on the outcome of real-world events, often political or economic — exert what he describes as a "gravitational pull" that makes them particularly appealing but also potentially risky for certain demographics. His group advocates for solutions rooted in measurable data rather than broad policy assumptions.

What Prediction Markets Are and Why They Matter to Players

Prediction markets function differently from traditional sportsbooks. Instead of betting against a house, players trade contracts on event outcomes — think election results, commodity prices, or major news developments. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi have grown rapidly in recent years, blending elements of financial trading with event wagering.

For players, the appeal is clear: you're not just placing a bet, you're effectively speculating on information and opinion trends. The problem, according to Cohen and AIBM, is that these platforms often lack the same deposit limits, session reminders, and loss tracking tools standard on licensed casino or sportsbook sites. The line between "informed trading" and compulsive wagering can blur quickly, especially for younger or less experienced users.

The Trust Problem and What It Means for Regulation

Cohen also pointed to a broader issue affecting American gambling markets: declining public trust. He noted that trust in institutions — including gambling operators and regulators — has deteriorated, making it harder to implement effective responsible gambling measures without pushback or scepticism from players and policymakers alike.

His solution? Build protections using transparent, verifiable data rather than top-down mandates. That means studying actual player behaviour on prediction platforms, identifying patterns that correlate with harm, and designing interventions accordingly. For example, if data shows that users who trade frequently within short windows are more likely to experience financial distress, platforms could implement mandatory cooldown periods or prompts after a certain number of rapid trades.

AIBM's approach emphasises collaboration between operators, regulators, and third-party researchers to create safeguards that feel helpful rather than intrusive. Cohen's comments suggest that prediction markets are outpacing the regulatory frameworks meant to govern them — and that players may be the ones left exposed.

Where Prediction Market Regulation Stands Now

Currently, prediction markets in the United States operate in a legal grey zone. Some platforms have secured regulatory approval from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), while others remain offshore or unlicensed. Traditional sportsbooks in regulated states must adhere to strict responsible gambling standards, but prediction platforms often face lighter scrutiny.

For players, this creates inconsistency. One platform might offer deposit limits and self-exclusion tools, while another provides no safeguards at all. Cohen's advocacy centres on closing that gap — ensuring that whether you're placing a parlay on a football match or speculating on a political outcome, the same baseline protections apply.

According to AIBM, the goal isn't to stifle prediction markets but to ensure they mature responsibly. Cohen framed regulated markets as inherently better than unregulated ones, but stressed that regulation must evolve alongside the products players are actually using.